In the case of Preston v. City of Chicago in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and municipal authority. The plaintiff, Preston, owned land that was taken by the city for public use without proper compensation being provided to him as required by law under eminent domain principles. He argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he did not receive just compensation for his property which was seized by the city to widen a street. However, the court held that since there had been no federal question presented at trial or decided upon by any state court prior to its arrival at this level, it lacked jurisdiction over this matter and thus could not rule on it. Therefore, while acknowledging potential violation of private property rights due to lack of adequate compensation from government seizure under eminent domain laws may have occurred here; they dismissed Preston's appeal based on procedural grounds rather than addressing substantive issues raised within it.

In the dissenting opinion for Preston v. City of Chicago, the justice argued that the city's actions were not a violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The justice contended that there was no deprivation of property without due process because Mr. Preston had been given notice and an opportunity to be heard before his property was taken by eminent domain proceedings initiated by the city. Furthermore, he believed that it was within Chicago’s power as a municipality to take such action in order to carry out public improvements like street widening projects which are deemed necessary for public welfare and safety considerations. He also disagreed with majority's interpretation regarding 'just compensation', stating it should not necessarily mean immediate cash payment but could include other forms such as bonds or promises of future payments depending on circumstances surrounding each case.